Mod+233. MARY RODWELL WHICH EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN EXPERIENCES MATTER

Go to page

*** http://skepticalhumanities.com/2012...omena-8-non-historical-fringe-linguistics-17/One especially prominent advocate of the reality of extraterrestrial languages of a more ‘orthodox’ nature is Mary Rodwell (Perth, Western Australia). Rodwell organises support groups for ‘experiencers’ (most of them ‘abductees’) and produces books, videos etc. on the subject, with samples of the written and spoken forms of alien languages as well as alien-inspired artwork. Rodwell promotes the view that these experiences represent actual physical happenings. Her ideas are discussed at length in the ‘Alien Semiotics Project’ papers mentioned earlier. The spoken and written material cited by Rodwell is produced by ‘experiencers’ rather than directly by aliens; the forms and sequences are outlined in largely self-reported case studies, notably that of the repeat-experiencer Tracey Taylor. The written material has the appearance of text written ‘grass-stroke’ style in a range of large alphabets, syllabaries or (parts of) logographies. There is too little material in each sample to be more confident, especially in the absence of useful translations. In fact, the translations offered for both the spoken and the written material are typically holistic only; they represent entire messages rather than individual words or phrases. Morpheme-by-morpheme translations are not available, and this point is actually emphasised by Rodwell. This conveniently excuses Taylor and others from being asked to assist linguists seeking to analyse the languages in the normal way by breaking utterances down into meaningful units and analyses using substitution and other such exercises...

One very forthcoming reporter was the 1960s contactee Bernard Byron, who claimed fluency in seventeen written and spoken extraterrestrial languages (some of them extrasolar) and was happy to provide specific translations. He was interviewed by the skeptical astronomer Patrick Moore, but unfortunately his material was never recorded at sufficient length for useful linguistic analysis.

Some reports of entire UFO-related languages involve alleged ancient visits to Earth by extraterrestrials; otherwise unknown scripts presumably encoding otherwise unknown languages of alien origin are described. For example, George Hunt Williamson reports that some Amerindian tribal peoples live close to rock faces (some of them known as ‘Rocks of Writing’) upon which mysterious ‘hieroglyphs’ are carved; they deny any connection with these symbols, regarding them as ‘timeless’. (Shades of the Bradshaw Paintings of Western Australia!) Williamson attributes the symbols to extraterrestrial entities who visited the area in ancient times. However, it is not in fact clear that these symbols are linguistic or even symbolic in character, still less that they are of genuinely mysterious origin.

One especially dramatic case of this kind (albeit ultimately lacking any corroboration) involves not written language but 716 grooved stone disks thirty centimetres in diameter, hardened with cobalt and displaying central holes, which were reportedly discovered in the Bayan Kara Ula mountain range in Western China in the period 1938-1962. It is suggested that these disks can be compared with vinyl records and may contain much data. The story presented recounts that a scholar called Tsum Um Nui (whose existence has not been confirmed) claimed that the grooves contained script and eventually announced a decipherment; the translation offered (the details were later disputed) indicated that the disks were artefacts of the inhabitants of an extraterrestrial spacecraft which landed in the area around 12,000 years BP and was unable to take off again.

If extraterrestrial aliens genuinely visit Earth, it is obviously possible in principle that they may be able to learn to use contemporary human languages, and indeed it is frequently reported that aliens have been able to learn and use the languages known by the witnesses, or other human languages ancient or modern. For example, Marc Tolosano reports a (single-witness) case where ‘ufonauts’ allegedly encountered in 1983 in France spoke French fluently (and claimed that their species was familiar with all human languages).

There is a sub-set of cases of this general nature which involve alleged contemporary extraterrestrial knowledge of unexpected human languages, notably ancient languages such as Latin and Greek. M.H. Edwards (see earlier) discusses several cases of this kind. Obviously, one possible explanation for such ability (if genuine) involves visits to Earth in ancient times and the subsequent transmission of the knowledge acquired at that time (or the retention of the knowledge by aliens with very long life-spans)...

If extraterrestrial aliens genuinely visit Earth, it is obviously possible in principle that they may be able to learn to use contemporary human languages, and indeed it is frequently reported that aliens have been able to learn and use the languages known by the witnesses, or other human languages ancient or modern. For example, Marc Tolosano reports a (single-witness) case where ‘ufonauts’ allegedly encountered in 1983 in France spoke French fluently (and claimed that their species was familiar with all human languages).

As matters stand, the provisional skeptical conclusion on the reality of extraterrestrial languages (spoken and/or written) and on extraterrestrial knowledge of human languages must be that no known case is truly convincing.

Unfortunately, after listening to two interviews now, I just don't feel that Rodwell has a lot credibility for me. From what I can see, it comes down to the fact that her patients under hypnosis have said things they didn't expect to say, which fit into recurring patterns, and which had therapeutic value. Those things, while very noteworthy, just don't require that what her patients said was true. She is building her edifice on data that could easily be just spilling from the unconscious of her patients. The woman who claimed the past lives in the Nazi concentration camp and in Egypt, for instance, sounded just plain kooky. She reminded me of too many people I've met in the New Age.

The most disturbing part of the interview was the story of the young autistic girl who communicated through the computer to her mother. What Rodwell slipped in was that this communication was "with the assistance of another." This clearly sounds like what's known as facilitated communication, where it was discovered that if a facilitator helps steady the hand of an autistic person, that person, who was thought incapable of speech or writing, could type coherent and even highly intelligent and lofty messages. Then someone wondered how this could be when the autistic person was often staring off into space, not even looking at the keyboard (though, of course, the facilitator was paying close attention to the keyboard). Then the accusation of abuse began to pour through these facilitated communications, to the point where some parents spent years in jail over charges that arose entirely from facilitated communications. Finally, someone belatedly decided to do blind tests, and ask the autistic "communicators" to spell out the names of objects in photographs--photographs that the facilitators could not see. Of course, they couldn't do it, because all along the communications were coming from the unconscious expectations of the facilitator, in Ouija-board-fashion. It's called the ideomotor phenomenon.

Rodwell appears to me to be building her work entirely on trust in what is coming through these incredibly suspect sources. It looks to me, unfortunately, like a classic case of building castles in the air. I enjoyed listening to her. She seems very sincere and is probably helping a great many people in some very significant ways. I just don't have confidence that any of what her patients are saying is actually true.

She's not a materialist, and I go along with that, but I think I have to agree that I take much of what she says with a pinch of salt. That said, I think she's more sincere than David Jacobs and more in tune with John Mack.

Unfortunately, after listening to two interviews now, I just don't feel that Rodwell has a lot credibility for me. From what I can see, it comes down to the fact that her patients under hypnosis have said things they didn't expect to say, which fit into recurring patterns, and which had therapeutic value. Those things, while very noteworthy, just don't require that what her patients said was true. She is building her edifice on data that could easily be just spilling from the unconscious of her patients. The woman who claimed the past lives in the Nazi concentration camp and in Egypt, for instance, sounded just plain kooky. She reminded me of too many people I've met in the New Age.

The problem with New Age in general is that it's an indefinite container for almost anything. I am personally less and less sure if there's a line between what's new age-y and what is not. Possibly all phenomena discussed in this forum are. It mainly depend on the approach towards the subject more than the content itself.

Are you familiar with any of Michael Newton's book? Or Dr. Brian Weiss? You usually find their works in the New Age sections of a book store but they don't belong there. Both authors have really no connection with it, they are both well respected professionals with a strong academic background and well rooted in our beloved materialistic paradigm.
You will find very similar material in those books, including several Nazi camp references, which indeed are disturbing and pretty difficult to swallow. (In fact I wasn't able to finish the book on my first attempt and came back to it several years later)

I think the risk here is to throw away the baby with the bath water and I agree with Michael Larkin that the proverbial pinch of salt is very necessary.

The most disturbing part of the interview was the story of the young autistic girl who communicated through the computer to her mother. What Rodwell slipped in was that this communication was "with the assistance of another." This clearly sounds like what's known as facilitated communication, where it was discovered that if a facilitator helps steady the hand of an autistic person, that person, who was thought incapable of speech or writing, could type coherent and even highly intelligent and lofty messages. Then someone wondered how this could be when the autistic person was often staring off into space, not even looking at the keyboard (though, of course, the facilitator was paying close attention to the keyboard). Then the accusation of abuse began to pour through these facilitated communications, to the point where some parents spent years in jail over charges that arose entirely from facilitated communications. Finally, someone belatedly decided to do blind tests, and ask the autistic "communicators" to spell out the names of objects in photographs--photographs that the facilitators could not see. Of course, they couldn't do it, because all along the communications were coming from the unconscious expectations of the facilitator, in Ouija-board-fashion. It's called the ideomotor phenomenon.

Do you have evidence that this is what happened in the case described by Rodwell. I haven't read the related book about the case, have you?
Can you provide more details as to why you think it's not legitimate?

Do you have evidence that this is what happened in the case described by Rodwell. I haven't read the related book about the case, have you? Can you provide more details as to why you think it's not legitimate?

I haven't read any of Rodwell's books. However, I do have difficulty imagining that the case she described is not facilitated communication. She describes a case where an autistic child, thought to be of low intelligence, was able, with the assistance of another, to type messages into a computer, and these messages, to her mother's surprise, revealed her to be highly aware, intelligent, and even quite deep. Everything I just put in that description describes facilitated communication to a tee. There, autistic children thought incapable of language could, with someone assisting them, write coherent messages (though they usually used alphabet boards, if I remember right, at least in the past). To the utter surprise of their parents, these messages revealed them to be incredibly aware, intelligent, and even philosophically deep.

Even though these sound exactly the same, without knowing the details on Rodwell's side, I could be wrong. It would be great to check. But if Rodwell is describing facilitated communication, then I find that disturbing.

On the technique itself, I really encourage you to watch the excellent piece that the PBS investigative journalism show Frontline did on it:

She describes a case where an autistic child, thought to be of low intelligence, was able, with the assistance of another, to type messages into a computer, and these messages, to her mother's surprise, revealed her to be highly aware, intelligent, and even quite deep. Everything I just put in that description describes facilitated communication to a tee.

Even if you are correct about it being FC, all that does is bring us to ground-zero of most things on this site - the difference between what mainstream science orgs claim is valid and what actually is. In the case of FC, most mainstream science bodies claim it is not "scientific," however a significant number of independent researchers consider it valid - or at least possibly valid.

Again I see that most of these discussions are more about people expressing what lenses they wear most-of-the-time rather than truly open-minded discourse about the topic at hand. In all fairness open-mindedness is rare and for most of us - unfamiliar and difficult.

Okay. Though I don't see them as parallel, I hold that the societal proceeds from the individual. And let me also clarify, my posts are not to meant to suggest that I think you (or anyone else) is supposed to view things as I do. Cheers.

Even if you are correct about it being FC, all that does is bring us to ground-zero of most things on this site - the difference between what mainstream science orgs claim is valid and what actually is. In the case of FC, most mainstream science bodies claim it is not "scientific," however a significant number of independent researchers consider it valid - or at least possibly valid.

Again I see that most of these discussions are more about people expressing what lenses they wear most-of-the-time rather than truly open-minded discourse about the topic at hand. In all fairness open-mindedness is rare and for most of us - unfamiliar and difficult.

With facilitated communication, it would be unbelievably easy to demonstrate. Just ask the autistic person "what is this a photo of?" and make sure that only the autistic person (and not the facilitator) can see the photo. If the autistic person is the aware, verbal, and intelligent person that the technique supposedly reveals, then he or she should get it right every time. So if there is a debate at all, in this case I think that means the phenomenon is not real. Unlike with psychic phenomena, this phenomenon has no ready explanation for why the autistic person wouldn't get it right every time.

And in terms of lenses, I'm willing to believe anything, and believe all sorts of extremely unconventional things, given that sufficient evidence is there.

Ninshub

The problem with New Age in general is that it's an indefinite container for almost anything. I am personally less and less sure if there's a line between what's new age-y and what is not. Possibly all phenomena discussed in this forum are. It mainly depend on the approach towards the subject more than the content itself.

Are you familiar with any of Michael Newton's book? Or Dr. Brian Weiss? You usually find their works in the New Age sections of a book store but they don't belong there. Both authors have really no connection with it, they are both well respected professionals with a strong academic background and well rooted in our beloved materialistic paradigm.
You will find very similar material in those books, including several Nazi camp references, which indeed are disturbing and pretty difficult to swallow. (In fact I wasn't able to finish the book on my first attempt and came back to it several years later)

Mary Rodwell: They always go back to the soul and say, “Before I came here there was an agreement with a particular species that I would experience and there would be a trade-off. The trauma would be a catalyst for X or Y.”

Let’s face it. We’re very good at looking at good and bad. What we don’t realize is that sometimes our most difficult, traumatic, painful experiences are the facilitator of the greatest growth of understanding. Because it’s painful we see it as bad instead of realizing that that’s often the process of the greatest growth for us as we challenge ourselves through that process. It is always the soul guiding the journey. That is how I see it and that’s what comes over time and time and time again.

Alex Tsakiris:It’s just extremely, extremely challenging because you also hear that from the between-lives and the past life thing with murder. You even hear it with sexual abuse. It’s just almost impossible for people to get their arms around that and I totally respect that. I can’t even touch that. I think it’s really, really challenging to go there in a way that most people are going to be able to get close to or relate to. It’s just too hard. It calls into question some of our core beliefs about good, about bad, and fundamentally about who we are and how we control things.

I get that Alex here is speaking for himself, and also speaking for people who aren't familiar with all of this sort of data.

It's not just the life-between-lives hypnotic regression data that presents these views. A lot of other data advances the view that it's highly likely that the human-perspective has little to do with the soul or greater-awareness perspective. And that if we start with the viewpoint of "Oh, I'm having trouble accepting this", then I'd have to say: of course you are! You're in the human perspective! How can you expect to be able to appreciate an incredibly vaster perspective? And if we start with the assumption that we, as human incarnates, should be able to come to an understanding and acceptance of the All That Is, that's a really naive, and illogical, view.

So, that soul-perspective vs. human-perspective stuff is available also, for example, in the work of Robert (not Gary) Schwartz' work with mediums who access pre-life planning, which gets to all of those really traumatic experiences that our souls (this is the view presented) planned on participating (murder, suicide, abuse, you name it). In his first book, Schwartz also has a chapter where the person getting the "reading" gets the information that her mentally challenged children are reincarnations of Nazis (not for "punishment", but for learning and growth). See this video for an intro to Schwartz' work:

And you also find it in some NDErs who seem to have gone farther than others in accessing such info. Natalie Sudman is one example. She was the victim of an exploding device in Iraq and in her NDE (which is incredibly detailed, multi-levelled and complex, even though it seems to have lasted a very short while earth time-wise), she sees she was a willing participant, co-planner of this event. In the human perspective, she's dealing with the trauma, and it's trauma. In the Expanded Awareness perspective, it's a completely different perspective, and can even be funny. Here's the first of 3 interviews she did with Bob Olson:

From part 2:

It’s not a contract. You can get out of it. You can change your mind any time you want to. I know people aren’t going to like that. Some people are going to argue, but that’s my experience. You can always choose not to do it. But those agreements are made on a spirit level, so the value is obvious up there or over there or right here. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t still play out the physical emotions and the physical judgments.

I mean that’s part of our physical experience is experiencing all of that. It’s like you can write a script for a movie and make somebody kill somebody and somebody rape somebody, all these awful things in this movie. Then you can act out the movie, and then you can show the movie. We know that it’s not real. Well, from the spirit level that’s kind of how it looks, even though when you’re in it, yeah, it feels real and it’s horrible. It can be wrenching. It can be awful. That’s real too. It’s valuable even though we may not see that.

From this environment it’s like I can see the whole scene of the blown up truck and everything going on down there and my body in that truck. I can see the injuries that I left this body with. So what we’re doing is we’re changing those.
This really good friend of mine with me here, we’re actually fooling around a lot. We’re like, okay, let’s lop off her right arm, and then we’d immediately see this whole lifetime of me with all the details; I’m trying to do everything with my left hand, and we thought that was hilarious. We’re falling down laughing. Or okay, let’s fix her head but let’s leave her with some brain damage so she can’t talk, and that’s funny to us in that environment. It’s not funny here, but it was hilarious from there.

We were choosing different possibilities and immediately seeing where those would lead, what kinds of experiences those injuries would offer, and how fun. It was very revealing and still continues to be revealing to me that I can go to that place and I can perceive my troubles and my difficulties through the healing process with a sense of humor. I mean it’s all hilarious. It’s all nothing to my whole self awareness.

Ninshub

I wanted to add that, according to all of these various sources of data, the human perspective, however tiny, still informs the wider perspective and is great spiritual importance. In his OBE & astral travels (another source of data for those radically different perspectives), Robert Monroe says the following:

In my few stopovers in the outer ring, it had always been utterly fascinating - the mix. Particularly the Last-Timers [last-time human incarnates], those who knowingly were about to make their final recycle. They gave off a radiation that was unforgettable - tremendous vital power that seemed totally under control. Within that strength were all of the values and ideals that humans hold important - not in time-space context, not in external control systems that demanded performance in specific manner, but something entirely apart, something learned from being human. (...) The key was that they got that way from being human. They were not that way at First Entry.

Robert, thanks for the scary video about FC. I come from the UK, and haven't heard much about it before. We did, however, have something that was eerily similar: the "satanic abuse" cases, and there was "satanic panic" in the US:

Elsewhere recently on the forum mention was made of the MK-Ultra thing:

Was Cathy O'Brian the victim of suggestions implanted by Mark Phillips (the guy in the first part of the video)? Is he like the pastor towards the end of the previous video?

I dunno: there seem to be parallels between a lot of shady areas, and people who doubtless think of themselves as sincerely trying to help alien abductees, autistic children, sufferers of satanic abuse and CIA mind control and so on, but it's hard to exclude the possibility of the madness of crowds that distorts whatever germs of truth there might be in the mix.

There are even echoes of it in what is putatively scientific. For example, the cold fusion, electric universe, AIDS, global warming, GMO foods, etc. controversies. Few areas seem to be completely free of the possible influence of mass delusion despite the fact that we pride ourselves as living in enlightened societies.

Michael, I too remember the whole satanic abuse craze. Everyone was convinced this stuff was going on everywhere, until law enforcement said they had never uncovered any evidence of it ever. I think it's an extremely telling episode. We can't just rely on what comes out of hypnotic regression, we can't. It's shown itself capable of giving birth to entire collective mythologies. Obviously, that doesn't mean that we rule out anything that comes out of it. It just means that before anything else, I believe, we search for corroborating physical evidence.

Michael, I too remember the whole satanic abuse craze. Everyone was convinced this stuff was going on everywhere, until law enforcement said they had never uncovered any evidence of it ever. I think it's an extremely telling episode. We can't just rely on what comes out of hypnotic regression, we can't. It's shown itself capable of giving birth to entire collective mythologies. Obviously, that doesn't mean that we rule out anything that comes out of it. It just means that before anything else, I believe, we search for corroborating physical evidence.

ok... except that there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that law enforcement UNDER REPORTS "satanic crimes"... like all these kinds of things I'm not suggesting that you swallow it all, but sift through what's presented looking for the parts that can easily be substantiated and then ask what that suggests about the rest of the iceberg:

Unfortunately, after listening to two interviews now, I just don't feel that Rodwell has a lot credibility for me. From what I can see, it comes down to the fact that her patients under hypnosis have said things they didn't expect to say, which fit into recurring patterns, and which had therapeutic value. Those things, while very noteworthy, just don't require that what her patients said was true. She is building her edifice on data that could easily be just spilling from the unconscious of her patients. The woman who claimed the past lives in the Nazi concentration camp and in Egypt, for instance, sounded just plain kooky. She reminded me of too many people I've met in the New Age.

The most disturbing part of the interview was the story of the young autistic girl who communicated through the computer to her mother. What Rodwell slipped in was that this communication was "with the assistance of another." This clearly sounds like what's known as facilitated communication, where it was discovered that if a facilitator helps steady the hand of an autistic person, that person, who was thought incapable of speech or writing, could type coherent and even highly intelligent and lofty messages. Then someone wondered how this could be when the autistic person was often staring off into space, not even looking at the keyboard (though, of course, the facilitator was paying close attention to the keyboard). Then the accusation of abuse began to pour through these facilitated communications, to the point where some parents spent years in jail over charges that arose entirely from facilitated communications. Finally, someone belatedly decided to do blind tests, and ask the autistic "communicators" to spell out the names of objects in photographs--photographs that the facilitators could not see. Of course, they couldn't do it, because all along the communications were coming from the unconscious expectations of the facilitator, in Ouija-board-fashion. It's called the ideomotor phenomenon.

Rodwell appears to me to be building her work entirely on trust in what is coming through these incredibly suspect sources. It looks to me, unfortunately, like a classic case of building castles in the air. I enjoyed listening to her. She seems very sincere and is probably helping a great many people in some very significant ways. I just don't have confidence that any of what her patients are saying is actually true.

I get that Alex here is speaking for himself, and also speaking for people who aren't familiar with all of this sort of data.

It's not just the life-between-lives hypnotic regression data that presents these views. A lot of other data advances the view that it's highly likely that the human-perspective has little to do with the soul or greater-awareness perspective. And that if we start with the viewpoint of "Oh, I'm having trouble accepting this", then I'd have to say: of course you are! You're in the human perspective! How can you expect to be able to appreciate an incredibly vaster perspective? And if we start with the assumption that we, as human incarnates, should be able to come to an understanding and acceptance of the All That Is, that's a really naive, and illogical, view.

So, that soul-perspective vs. human-perspective stuff is available also, for example, in the work of Robert (not Gary) Schwartz' work with mediums who access pre-life planning, which gets to all of those really traumatic experiences that our souls (this is the view presented) planned on participating (murder, suicide, abuse, you name it). In his first book, Schwartz also has a chapter where the person getting the "reading" gets the information that her mentally challenged children are reincarnations of Nazis (not for "punishment", but for learning and growth). See this video for an intro to Schwartz' work:

And you also find it in some NDErs who seem to have gone farther than others in accessing such info. Natalie Sudman is one example. She was the victim of an exploding device in Iraq and in her NDE (which is incredibly detailed, multi-levelled and complex, even though it seems to have lasted a very short while earth time-wise), she sees she was a willing participant, co-planner of this event. In the human perspective, she's dealing with the trauma, and it's trauma. In the Expanded Awareness perspective, it's a completely different perspective, and can even be funny. Here's the first of 3 interviews she did with Bob Olson:

I definitely think UFOs are for real--way too much evidence there in my opinion. I have a very difficult time not believing the Travis Walton case. So yeah, I think he was taken. I honestly don't know yet what to make of the alien abduction phenomenon. I wish I had a clear conclusion about it, but I don't. I honestly don't know enough about the spiritually transformative experiences with the others, but I haven't heard anything yet to really grab my attention. I did, however, read Rick Strassman's book and found the DMT encounters extremely interesting.

I think when information is spilling out of an altered state, the fact that different people are independently saying the same thing is just not enough. Back in my teens I fell hook, line, and sinker for the Edgar Cayce view that we were heading towards catastrophic earth changes (like California sinking). To some degree I believed it because a huge range of psychics were "seeing" the same thing. I still don't know how all those psychics were tuning into the same details, but I don't have to know that in order to admit that it didn't happen and isn't going to happen.